Think it like this. We have this code in Python :-
def add(a, b):
return a + b
Here we are taking two arguments a, b and then returning a + b. But we can pass
in instance of any class like str, int, float, dict, user-defined class, etc.
But we only want to add int here. Here we can modify i
On 4/25/21 9:09 AM, Shreyan Avigyan wrote:
> Think it like this. We have this code in Python :-
>
> def add(a, b):
> return a + b
>
> Here we are taking two arguments a, b and then returning a + b. But we can
> pass in instance of any class like str, int, float, dict, user-defined class,
> et
Typeguard provides this functionality:
https://typeguard.readthedocs.io/en/latest/userguide.html
It's not perfect but that's because runtime type hints have lots of
restrictions on what can be reasoned about them. But for simple and common
cases it works very well.
--
Damian (he / him)
On Sun, A
I am aware of all those libraries that allows us to type check. But it would be
nice to have this feature built-in. I'm not talking about modifying type
annotation but introducing a new feature. Like,
def add(int a, int b):
return a + b
If type is not provided then take in any parameter typ
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 4:19 AM Shreyan Avigyan
wrote:
>
> I am aware of all those libraries that allows us to type check. But it would
> be nice to have this feature built-in. I'm not talking about modifying type
> annotation but introducing a new feature. Like,
>
> def add(int a, int b):
>
First of all the use case is when for example we have UserDefined class and my
function or another class can only handle instances of the UserDefined class.
Second of all why not add a built-in type check decorator then?
___
Python-ideas mailing list --
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 4:58 AM Shreyan Avigyan
wrote:
>
> First of all the use case is when for example we have UserDefined class and
> my function or another class can only handle instances of the UserDefined
> class. Second of all why not add a built-in type check decorator then?
>
What if i
Thanks for clarifying. And I agree with you. Not writing checking code will
make the function more flexible.
Thanking you,
With Regards
___
Python-ideas mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
On 4/25/21 3:08 PM, Shreyan Avigyan wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying. And I agree with you. Not writing checking code will
> make the function more flexible.
>
> Thanking you,
> With Regards
My experiance is that the type annotaions let my IDE warn me of wrong
parameters, or give me hints as to wha
